Hi Alex, On 02 May 2016, at 08:30, Alex Hankey wrote:

RE Bruno Marchal: It is easier to explain the illusion of matter tosomething conscious than to explain the illusion of consciousness tosomething material.ME: At the Consciousness Conference I found it extraordinary that atleast one plenary presentation was centered round treating the wavefunction as a real entity in the (strongly) objective sense.I was under the impression that Bernard D'Espagnat's work for whichhe received the Templeton Prize had definitively shown that nothingis 'objectively real' in the strongly objective sense. The definiteexistence of quantum correlations destroys all that.

`Is that not self-defeating? How could the quantum correlations`

`existence be definite if nothing is objective?`

`With Digital Mechanism we need to accept that the existence of the`

`universal machine and the computations is as real/true as the facts of`

`elementary arithmetic, on which everyone agree(*). Then we can explain`

`why machines develop a belief in a physical reality, and why that`

`beliefs can last and can be sharable among many individuals, like with`

`the quanta, and why some part of those beliefs are not sharable, yet`

`undoubtable, like the qualia.`

`(*) I like to define Arithmetical Realism by the action of not`

`withdrawing your kids from school when they learn the table of`

`addition and multiplication. It is mainly the belief that 2+2=5 is not`

`correct.`

Once this is accepted, the enquirer is faced with the question ofwhat to accept as fundamental. I have always considered'information' in the sense of the process or flow that connects theobserved to the observer as a satisfactory alternative. The processof information flow creates the observer-observed relationship and(the illusion of??) their separation.

`I can be OK with this. In arithmetic, it is more like a consciousness`

`flow, and actually a differentiating consciousness flow, from which`

`the laws of physics evolve.`

Sequences of information production made possible by lack ofequilibrium, both mechanical and thermodynamic, create pictures ofparticle tracks at the microscopic level, and pictures of objects atthe macroscopic level.

`This already seem to presuppose a physical reality. As I am interested`

`in understanding what that could be and where it comes from, I prefer`

`to not assume it. I gave an argument why such an assumption is not`

`quite compatible with the digital mechanist assumption (not in`

`physics, but in cognitive science).`

Everything is made consistent by the existence of quantumcorrelations in mathematical ways use by Everett in the book on theMany Worlds interpretation by Bryce De Witt (note that I use themathematics, but do not concur with the interpretation).

`Everett did not talk about a new interpretation. He just gave a new`

`Quantum Mechanics formulation, which is basically the old one`

`(Copenhagen) but without the assumption of a wave collapse. I tend to`

`agree with David Deutsch on this: the "many-world" is just literal`

`quantum mechanics, where we apply the wave or matrix equation to the`

`observed and the observer as well.`

In my approach, the universe continuously makes choices, and selectsamong its own futures. I had a lengthy conversation with Henry Stapptwo days ago at the conference after his talk, and checked that hestill approves of this approach.

`The only problem with Everett theory, is that he used digital`

`mechanism, and what I did show, is that this should force him to`

`extend the embedding of the physicist in the wave to the embedding of`

`the mathematician in arithmetic (a dormant notion, alas). The ultimate`

`equation of physics might be only arithmetic (or anything Turing`

`equivalent). All the rest becomes internal phenomenologies, at least`

`assuming digital mechanism.`

`This makes also digital mechanism testable, by comparing the physical`

`phenomenology with the actual observation. Up to now, it fits: the`

`quantum weirdness of the universal wave (the multiverse) seem to match`

`well the digital mechanist arithmetical weirdness of arithmetic`

`(intuitively and formally).`

`The only trouble is that such a top down approach leads to complex`

`unsolved problem in mathematics, which is normal, given the depth and`

`complexity of the subject. I am not a defender of digital mechanism, I`

`use it only because the philosophical and theological questions`

`becomes mathematical problem. I search the key only under the lamp of`

`mathematics.`

Best, Bruno

P.S. Thanks to all for making this such a rich and interestingdiscussion.-- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 ____________________________________________________________2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis